Category: Firm News

Daily News
DA cuts up jail guard razor rap – Took grooming tool to work
BY REUVEN BLAU
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

THE BRONX district attorney’s office has dropped felony charges against a correction officer who was accused of trying to smuggle a razor-edged tool into Rikers Island.

Charlie Bracey, 47, of Queens, was arrested after officers found a multitool wrapped in black electrical tape inside his backpack on Oct.10.

Bracey insisted he forgot he was carrying the tool when he came to work — and that he never intended to sell itto inmates.

He got the tool as part of a subscription to Birchbox, an online service that sends customers several grooming items each month. The multitool was part of a promotion for the movie “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”in September.

Bracey said he used the gadget as a can opener and wrapped the bottom in black tape because it began to tear. Crooked officers and inmates often use tape to prevent weapons from being spotted by metal detectors.

Before he was screened coming to work, Bracey complained to officers manning the metal detectors about new stringent checks. “I really believe the rant I went on had some thing to do with it,” he said.”You bruise people’s egos when you challenge what they are doing.”

The Correction Department captain on duty told him to just bring the tool back to his car. But a Department of Investigation boss at the scene took the offense more seriously, photographing the tool and ordering his arrest. Bracey spent a night in Bronx central booking before a judge released him on his own recognizance.

“I was in denial,” he recalled. “I didn’t want to believe it was happening.”

At home, his wife of 16 years, Lillian, scrambled to assess their finances. “She was a rock,” he said. “She came up with a plan of action for what we hoped would be ashort period of unemployment.”

Bracey was his family’s sole support of the family. His wife takes care of the couple’s autistic daughter, Genesis,7.

Correction colleagues took up a collection and Bracey’s in-laws and siblings helped out with the mounting bills. “I was lucky in this situation to have such a strong family,” he said.

On Monday, after two meetings with Bronx prosecutors, the case was dismissed. Bronx DA spokeswoman Terry Raskyn declined to detail why the case was tossed other than “there would not have been enough evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Charles Bracey’s lawyer hailed the decision. “The only one who wanted him arrested was DOI,” said attorney David Kirsch, 36.

DOI has been behind the arrest for discipline of more than 50 officers since 2014 as the city desperately tries to stop the smuggling of contraband in to jails, records show.

“They are trying to fight certain systemic issues that have been going on for years,” Kirsch said. “He was the unfortunate victim of a press release.”

The Department of Investigation “stands behind the facts referred to the Bronx district attorney,” said spokeswoman Diane Struzzi. “As the prosecuting authority, they are the appropriate entity to comment on decisions regarding prosecution of the case.”Bracey has been notified by the Correction Department that he will be reinstated within the next few days. But he may still face departmental charges, where the bar is lower than that of criminal court.”I’m very much looking forward to going back to work,” Bracey said.

THE CHIEF-LEADER
Rule Correction Dept. Wrongly Fired CO Who Was Domestic-Abuse Victim
*Image courtesy Jenny Castillo

READY TO GO BACK: Jenny Castillo was fired during her probationary period as a Correction Officer for excessive absences, but a judge has ordered her reinstatement, saying that she had told the Department of Correction that the absences were caused by her abusive domestic partner and that DOC violated a city law requiring employers to make accommodations for domestic-violence victims.

By MARK TOOR |

A state judge has ordered the rehiring of a probationary Correction Officer who was fired for absences rela­ting to abuse by her domestic partner.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled July 17 that the Department of Correction acted in bad faith when it dismissed Jenny Castillo despite a law requiring employers to make allowances for domestic-violence victims.

‘Must Comply With Law’

Her attorney, Mercedes Mal­donado of Koehler & Isaacs, said in an interview last week that DOC has “yet to recognize that they still have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws that affect unique groups such as domestic-violence victims,” as opposed to the standard racial, ethnic and demographic categories.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani sign­ed an amendment to the Human Rights Law in 2001 expanding the classes protected from employment discrimination to include domestic-violence victims.

Ms. Castillo was hired as a CO in December 2010, according to Justice Ling-Cohan’s decision. The job carries a two-year probationary period. She was awarded commendations in May and August of 2011.

However, in February 2012 she was placed on chronic-absence status based on her use of 63 sick days to recover from hand surgery. She missed additional days until she was fired Aug. 22, 2012 because of absences resulting from domestic violence.

Ms. Castillo’s petition describes “incidents in which her abuser: wrapped his hands around petitioner’s throat and strangled her; punched a door, causing the door to break; deliberately hid her badge so she could not go to work; held a beer bottle in his hand while threatening, ‘so you want me to smash your face in with this bottle’; became enraged when petitioner had her friends visit their home, threatening, ‘I’ll get a gun and kill you and all your friends’…and threatened, almost daily, to ‘f—up’ petitioner.”

Ms. Castillo, who worked an overnight shift, was afraid to leave her three children and two grandchildren

who lived with her alone with him at night, the decision said. The twin grandchildren have a sleeping disorder that requires monitoring them at night. She asked for a “hardship tour” in which she would transfer to either day or evening shifts, but DOC turned her down, the decision said.

She repeatedly told DOC doctors and psychologists that she was a victim of domestic violence, but DOC’s answer was to find her unqualified to carry a firearm, which the decision said was apparently an automatic response to a domestic-violence report.

Although she notified the agency, DOC also marked her as absent without leave for a mandatory Family Court appearance in May 2012, the decision said.

Cited Right to Fire

The city argued that Ms. Castillo, “as a probationary Correction Officer, could be terminated at any time, with or without cause,” the decision said. City attorneys said that DOC had only “limited” knowledge of her domestic problems and that the termination was not “arbitrary and capricious,” the standard that justifies court intervention.

Justice Ling-Cohan found that DOC did not even follow its own directive ordering reasonable accommodations for domestic-violence victims. She said DOC records made clear that Ms. Castillo had informed medical personnel and supervisors repeatedly that she had a problem. She was erroneously marked absent without leave five times, the judge said.

The termination decision “was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and made in bad faith,” she wrote.

Ms. Castillo was ordered reinstated “forthwith,” and awarded back pay for the time she was jobless, which is about $84,000.

The Department of Law told the New York Law Journal that the city would accept Justice Ling-Cohan’s decision. But Ms. Maldonado told THE CHIEF-LEADER, “We have been told there has not been an official decision as yet.” The city has until the end of August to appeal, she said.

Ms. Castillo “is very anxious to get back to work,” Ms. Maldonado said. “She is looking forward to many years of excellent public service.”

Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal
August 7, 2015

A judge ordered a probationary corrections officer who was fired for “chronic absences” to be reinstated after deciding that her repeated complaints of domestic violence were ignored by the New York City Department of Correction.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said the agency’s actions provided “ample” evidence of bad faith before it terminated Jenny Castillo. Its actions ranged from denying her “hardship” request not to work the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift so she could care overnight for the five children in her care, to marking her AWOL for the day she was in Family Court at a hearing on an order of protection she sought against her abuser, the judge said.
Castillo was terminated as of Aug. 22, 2012. But Ling-Cohan said the agency was in a position to have known that Castillo might be in a domestic violence situation as early as April 10, 2012, when she reported a back injury to the Department of Correction’s Health Management Division (HMD) that she said was caused by her abuser.

Ling-Cohan also detailed in Matter of Castillo v. Schriro, 104502/12, other instances where the department was on notice of the domestic situation but apparently did nothing.
They included the three “progress notes” in her health division file in April and May 2012 confirming her abuse victim status; referrals as a domestic violence victim as early as April 23, 2012, to the Correction Assistance Response for Employees (CARE) unit; and a letter that Castillo said she delivered in person to her bosses on May 16 from Safe Horizon detailing her situation.
On April 30, the health division deemed Castillo unqualified psychologically to possess a firearm after she told the medical staff about the domestic abuse.

“In fact,” Ling-Cohan wrote, “it appears that the only ‘accommodation’ respondents made in response to petitioner divulging her painful secret of domestic violence, which affected her well-being and that of the five children under her care, was to take away her gun.”
The judge added that “incredibly,” an agent for the correction department sent to check up on her at 10:15 p.m. on a day she was absent from work, believed Castillo’s abuser when he said she was at church. Castillo said she was, in fact, at home.

Castillo argued that she missed work because her abuser hid her jail ID, so she could not report to work; because she was afraid to leave the children with him overnight or; after she secured the order of protection, she could not find overnight arrangements to care for the children in her home.
She said she was also in fear for her own safety and that of the five children-her three children and two grandchildren-due to the verbal threats of violence.

The city maintained that its information about Castillo’s domestic situation was “limited” and that, at any rate, it has liberal authority to dismiss employees who are on probationary terms.
[Description: Justice Ling-Cohan]Justice Ling-Cohan

Ling-Cohan countered that protections in New York City Human Rights Law against discrimination based on disability or status as a domestic violence victim apply to probationary employees. The law puts the burden on the employer to show it tried to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to the affected employee’s circumstances, something the Department of Correction did not do for Castillo, she said.
As far as the arguments about not being apprised of Castillo’s situation, Ling-Cohan said Castillo proved through unchallenged documentation that the Department of Correction and its divisions were adequately informed.

The judge also said the assistant deputy warden who signed off on Castillo’s termination had “unfettered” access to all of Castillo’s records, including those with the agency’s health division and CARE program.

Ling-Cohan said Castillo made a valid claim for a violation of her human rights based on disability with her argument that the department did not recognized the 63 days she missed from September 2011 to February 2012 stemmed from two surgeries she had to repair injuries she suffered when a kitchen cabinet fell on her hand.

Castillo said she was unfairly placed on “chronic absence” status upon her return to work based on earlier absences.

Ling-Cohan ordered Castillo to receive back pay to the date she was terminated as well as benefits and seniority.

Castillo said she was hired as a provisional correction officer subject to a two-year probation period on Dec. 16, 2010, She received a letter of appreciation from the department on May 6, 2011, and a certificate of appreciation on Aug. 7, according to the decision.

Castillo was also cited in a Feb. 27, 2011, New York Daily News story for having saved the life of a choking man on whom she performed the Heimlich maneuver outside a Queens bank.
Assistant Corporation Counsels Stephen Pischl and Anika Bent-Albert defended the Department of Correction.

A spokesman for the corporation counsel’s office said Wednesday the city will “abide by the court’s decision.”

Mercedes Maldonado, senior attorney for Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP in Manhattan, said she was “very happy” and hoped for Castillo’s prompt return to the job.

“This woman really needs to get back to work,” Maldonado said.

Jenny Castillo will get back her job as a correction worker.

A judge hammered the city Correction Department for unfairly firing a probationary employee who missed work due to injuries she suffered from her abusive husband.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ordered the city to reinstate Correction Officer Jenny Castillo and give her $84,000 in back pay.

“I got my life back,” the 40-year-old mother of five told the Daily News on Thursday. “My job as a correction officer was not a job. It was a career. It was my dream job.”

Castillo said she repeatedly told her bosses about her “out-of-control” husband and asked for scheduling accommodations.

During one fight, he wrapped his hands around her neck and tried to strangle her, court papers say. Another time, he hid her badge so she couldn’t go to work. He also threatened to slash her face with a broken bottle and repeatedly talked of killing her, according to legal documents. She was forced to miss 63 days of work, partially due to a back injury she suffered after he slammed her into a wall, records show.

At one point, jail bosses deemed Castillo AWOL after she attended a mandatory Family Court hearing concerning a restraining order against her husband, court papers show. Callous jail honchos placed her in a “chronic absence” program and fired her on Aug. 22, 2012.

“I didn’t have any hope,” Castillo recalled.

The department’s “discriminatory and bad faith” firing “shocks the conscience” and violated the department’s internal rules for domestic violence victims, Ling-Cohan ruled on July 28.

As the case snaked its way through court, Castillo lost her home in Jamaica, Queens, and at times barely had enough money to feed her family, she said.

Her lawyer hopes the decision sends a message to the department.

“It’s high time that the Department of Correction stopped punishing people for absences that are medically documented or punishing employees who are victims of domestic violence,” said Mercedes Maldonado of the firm Koehler and Isaacs.

Jail officials didn’t respond to a request for comment.

THE CHIEF-LEADER
Claimed Illegal Retaliation

Judge Dismisses Rival’s Suit Against COBA Head

Updated: 4:01 pm, Mon Jul 13, 2015.
By MARK TOOR

A State Supreme Court Justice has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association President Norman Seabrook and the union by a dissident board member.

“At this point, the actions and inactions complained of in the petition amount to the internal workings of a union,” State Supreme Court Justice Carol E. Huff said in a three-page decision issued July 1.

‘A Rancorous Dispute’

COBA Corresponding Secretary William Valentin claimed in the Article 78 petition that Mr. Seabrook had unlawfully deprived him of his elected position and that the union had failed to consider countercharges he made against the union head. “Both Valentin and Seabrook made numerous accusations against each other in what is clearly a rancorous internal dispute,” Justice Huff wrote.

She agreed with COBA’s attorneys that Mr. Valentin’s suit should be dismissed because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies within COBA before bringing the Article 78 petition. Mr. Valentin’s lawyers had argued that “exhaustion of remedies is not required because it would be futile for him to attempt them,” the decision said.

But Justice Huff ruled that “Valentin has not established that following COBA procedure would be futile, or even that he has been deprived of his office, as opposed to being deprived of certain optional benefits. He has also failed to prove that his charges against Seabrook are not being pursued in accordance with COBA rules.”

Bharara on the Case

Both Mr. Valentin and Mr. Seabrook said that U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had opened an investigation of COBA based on allegations by Mr. Valentin that the union president had invested $10 million without the executive board’s approval. Mr. Seabrook argued that he did not need such approval.

He said in a statement about Mr. Valentin’s suit, “Bringing these meritless claims was a waste of time and money, not just for our hard-working members, but also for the taxpayers of this city and state. We’re glad the judge agreed that they are without merit. Hopefully, our victory today will put this issue behind us and send a message to the person behind these frivolous claims that the matter is closed.”

Mr. Valentin said in an interview that he did not consider the dispute concluded. He presented a May 18 letter from the head of the union hearing committee on his case, Valerie Flake, in which she said, “After a full investigation, reviewing the charges and supporting documents, the by-law provisions allegedly violated, and having had interviews with relevant witnesses, the committee finds that there is not sufficient evidence on any of these charges to hold a hearing.”

In a second letter dated July 9, she said, “The hearing committee has no further role to play in this matter.”

Reloading for New Round

So, he said, “COBA did rule on the issue,” and he did indeed exhaust his union remedies. He said he would re-file the Article 78 petition. “I’m still in the fight,” he said. “This is still going to continue.”

Mr. Valentin filed his Article 78 petition in April. He said in February that Mr. Seabrook fired him from the executive board last winter when he tried to obtain a copy of the union’s membership list, which he said he was responsible for updating.

The COBA president said at the time that Mr. Valentin had sought not only the membership list but also confidential information about Correction Officers, including their Social Security numbers. Mr. Seabrook said that when he did not comply with the request for the list, Mr. Valentin asked a union employee to give him a copy and “don’t tell Norman.”

At that point, Mr. Seabrook said, he determined Mr. Valentin was no longer trustworthy and revoked his release time, sending him back to duty in the jails. Mr. Valentin remains an officer of the union, Mr. Seabrook said.

Valentin’s Rebuttal

In his lawsuit, Mr. Valentin denied seeking confidential information. He said in his internal complaint to the union that Mr. Seabrook revoked or took back his union credit card, E-Z Pass, mobile phone, computer account and office computer. He said he was no longer notified of executive-board meetings.

He then filed charges with the union and the Article 78 petition on which Justice Huff ruled.

Click to read full article

Former Rikers Island correction officer fighting to get job back after allegedly being shot in face by jail boss husband, then fired
BY CHELSIA ROSE MARCIUS , RICH SCHAPIRO
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, April 24, 2015, 2:30 PM

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Janine Howard, here with Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association head Norman Seabrook, is suing the Correction Department to get her job back.

First she was shot in the face — allegedly by her jail boss husband. Then she was fired from her job as a Rikers Island correction officer.
Now Janine Howard, 40, is fighting to get back on the Correction Department payroll.
“I feel victimized,” the Long Island mother said Friday in her first interview. “I feel my safety, security can just be taken from me at any time.”
Howard’s nightmarish ordeal began on Dec. 2013 when she was shot by Rikers Island Capt. Brian Martin, 37, during an argument inside their Roosevelt home, prosecutors say.
Martin has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder charges.
The shooting left Howard with shattered bones in her face and a bullet fragment in her neck.

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Howard was shot in the face by husband and jail boss Brian Martin, and then just a year later was fired with no reason being given.

But what came afterward was almost as painful, Howard says.
A Rikers Island supervisor showed up at her house without warning on Dec. 23, 2014 — and told her she was being fired. No reason was given, Howard said.
At the time, Howard was out sick and on restrictive hours.
“I had a small child,” added Howard who has a five-year-old daughter from a prior relationship. “I thought it was a good career. The job is difficult but I thought I could do it.”
Howard is suing the Correction Department to get her job back — an action that was initiated by Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association head Norman Seabrook.

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Howard, 40, said that she “felt victimized” by the Correction Department, as they let her go without ever giving her a reason.

“I feel my safety, security can just be taken from me at any time.”

“Miss Howard is a victim of a horrendous crime,” said her lawyer Mercedes Maldonado.
“Norman Seabrook and the Correction Officers Benevolent Association executive board instructed me to bring this litigation, get her job back, and that’s what we intend to do.”
Seabrook said Howard has been victimized twice.
“For this man to think that he can abuse her, attempt to murder her … is unacceptable,” Seabrook added.
“For the Department of Correction to turn around and terminate her services the day after she was supposed to be off probation sends a very clear message that they don’t seem to have feelings of caring about their employees.”
The Correction Department did not immediately return a request for comment.

Click here to read full article

The team of lawyers from the law office of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP joined coordinators at Mantena Global Care and participants during the lecture on insurance, in Newark (NJ). The office of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP has served the Portuguese-speaking community for more than 20 years

On Saturday afternoon of April 11th, attorney Barry Washor, who is Of Counsel at Koehler & Isaacs LLP, with a branch office located at 26 Ferry Street in the Ironbound neighborhood of Newark, held a free legal seminar on the importance of acquiring an insurance policy, particularly for automobile drivers in New Jersey. The free public event took place at Mantena Global Care’s headquarters, located at 294 Ferry Street. Barry, accompanied by lawyer Cynthia Devasia, who is also the Practice Manager in Newark, addressed the issue of under insurance and answered many questions posed by participants at the seminar.

The lawyers at Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP have been serving the Portuguese-speaking community in metropolitan New York and New Jersey for more than 20 years.

Barry Washor, an expert in personal injury, medical malpractice, and professional negligence work discussed the following topic: “When an uninsured motorist is involved in an accident, the lack of coverage can cause hardship for the uninsured driver, and also for any other persons who suffer an injury as a result of the uninsured driver’s negligence.”

The lawyer stressed that, regardless of one’s immigration status in the US, all workers have rights because the country signed a treaty with Brazil guaranteeing certain labor protections. He usually retains cases involving industrial accidents between 2-3 years, so it is necessary that victims seek their rights with an attorney as soon as possible.

Barry also noted that all car owners in the Garden State are required to have car insurance and the minimum sum insured is $15,000, determined by state law. However, drivers can purchase “under insurance” which costs $25 every 6 months and covers up to $500,000.

The lawyer stressed that companies must, by law, offer it to customers, but many do not.

Ailton de Souza, Client Relations Manager at Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, said that the office plans to hold a series of lectures, as needed for the community.

The best-known type of insurance is for automobiles which is required by law. While many people obtain car insurance only because the law demands and because they are willing to pay only the bare minimum, there are also others who want a wide range of coverage in order to protect any damages that happen to the vehicle.

Currently, you can find insurance at a lower price than those that existed years ago. With the advent of new technologies, it is very easy to purchase insurance online and obtain the required coverage with a simple click, which allows insurers to reduce costs and therefore the premiums are more affordable.

Another type of insurance that is booming is health insurance, which allows you to receive medical care at prices below those in the private health sector. One’s health is priceless and this is a type of insurance that makes a trip to the doctor, or the length of waiting for an operation, faster and less painful than the endless queues and waiting lists that exist at most hospital’s emergency rooms.

Although this insurance is considered to be very expensive by many people, the truth is that, if necessary, it can significantly help to reduce the hardships of a potentially very difficult financial situation.

For those who have small children, there is liability insurance available for very inexpensive prices. For those going on vacation or who travel frequently, travel insurance is a great safety net and a way that can cover you from lost or stolen property.

For those who want to protect their homes, home insurance helps ensure the value of the property’s assets. There are even dental plans, group life insurance and pension plans.

For more information about this event, please contact Ailton Souza, Client Relations Manager, telephone: (862) 240-1900 or visit the Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP website: www.seudireitousa.com.

By Carl Campanile
Posted: December 5, 2014
NY Post

The union representing the city’s correction officers has quietly filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, claiming ObamaCare will bankrupt its health-care fund, The Post has learned.

The Correction Officers Benevolent Association maintains a supplemental medical fund for members that sets a $10,000 annual cap per family on prescription-drug benefits. The fund also provides optical and dental benefits.

But the new federal heath-care law bars the union from imposing annual limits on drug purchases — in essence, making the Affordable Care Act unaffordable, the lawsuit alleges.

“ObamaCare will bankrupt us,” said COBA President Norman Seabrook.

The lawsuit, which lists President Obama and other federal officials as defendants, said the lifting of the cap has resulted in “skyrocketing costs.”

The union estimated that two dozen members exceeded the previously imposed $10,000 cap and two participants were running up prescription bills of more than $50,000 each.

The union said in the June suit that the cap — coupled with 30 percent co-payments and mandatory use of generic drugs — was put in place to control costs and keep the fund solvent.

The city is the main source of funding — kicking in $1,780 per member.

COBA complained that its petition to the Obama administration seeking an exemption “fell on deaf ears” — hence, the lawsuit.

The suit, before Judge Shira Scheindlin, claims ObamaCare is anti-union and unconstitutional.

“The regulators’ refusal to grant the requested exemption violates the equal-protection and free-association rights of union members and their dependents,” COBA lawyer Howard Wien claimed.

“The only reason they are threatened with the loss of their prescription-drug coverage is their association with a labor union and one another.”

The COBA suit said the health-law edict leaves difficult choices: shut down the fund, severely limit benefits — or put all its money into saving the fund at the expense of ­officers’ wages and retirement benefits.

COBA appears to have gotten the attention of Obama health officials.

In a Nov. 21 court filing, the federal defendants requested a four-month stay to examine whether they can exempt COBA from the cost rule and potentially settle the case.

“The administrative-assessment process might ultimately obviate the need for this litigation to continue,” said Assistant Manhattan US Attorney Rebec­ca Tinio, responding on behalf of the administration.